NHL vs. NHLPA

Since you got all of the answers, I thought I should introduce new reporting to you:

Quote:

NFL players filed for an injunction to end the NFL lockout last year, but ultimately lost on appeal: “But they lost it on jurisdiction,” said Mort Mitchnick, a labour lawyer with the Toronto-based firm Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. “So no one’s clear yet, as to what the real answer is, in terms of whether you can actually [end] the lockout.”

During the NBA lockout, NBA players opted against filing that injunction, and instead filed for the treble damages: “And two weeks later, they had a deal,” Mitchnick said. “Often times, it’s the threat and the uncertainty of what’s hanging over your head that causes things to change.”

I never once claimed to know how this was going to go down all I was saying was a vote on the last proposal would be direct evidence that the union is not working and that this isn't a tactic. Why would they not vote on it? What have they got to lose unless this is just a tactic to sue the nhl? If they are just doing this to sue the nhl then they clearly care less than the owners about playing hockey.

"The NHL couldn't take back the filings, while the players could display that NHL filings based on a menu vote is not negotiating in good faith." That's not negotiating in bad faith that is a procedure to make the lockout legal in the event the union breaks down as several players have publicly said they would consider.

I never once claimed to know how this was going to go down all I was saying was a vote on the last proposal would be direct evidence that the union is not working and that this isn't a tactic. Why would they not vote on it? What have they got to lose unless this is just a tactic to sue the nhl? If they are just doing this to sue the nhl then they clearly care less than the owners about playing hockey.

"The NHL couldn't take back the filings, while the players could display that NHL filings based on a menu vote is not negotiating in good faith." That's not negotiating in bad faith that is a procedure to make the lockout legal in the event the union breaks down as several players have publicly said they would consider.

You caught that I see

This is all a page from the sports labour negotiation script anyways. I just love how people hate on the union with notions that they're demands are not good for the game, yet everything they allow in their CBA makes the game healthy.

The draft, being an RFA, penalty fines, etc., all takes away from personal freedoms, but without them the game will crumble. No question that free market players would contract the league and cause the game lose competitive parity among teams. That's just market dynamics. As is the supply and demand for more skilled labour, hence only the best players available in the market would be selected, thereby countering the replacement players paradigm.

It's the lose of personal freedom that the players sacrifice to make this game healthy. But their demands are outrageous when the cling to the little freedoms they have left? More revenue sharing among owners is out of the question because the owners feel they're entitled to the freedoms of individual profit maximization, as no busines owner wants to subsidize a struggling competitor.

Then let the union dissolve. Perhaps then the owners will respect what a cooperative business model looks like. These ranchers think they're special, as if they themselves aren't chomping on the grass like cattle to stay alive. We all ***** ourselves out someway or another.

This is all a page from the sports labour negotiation script anyways. I just love how people hate on the union with notions that they're demands are not good for the game, yet everything they allow in their CBA makes the game healthy.

The draft, being an RFA, penalty fines, etc., all takes away from personal freedoms, but without them the game will crumble. No question that free market players would contract the league and cause the game lose competitive parity among teams. That's just market dynamics. As is the supply and demand for more skilled labour, hence only the best players available in the market would be selected, thereby countering the replacement players paradigm.

It's the lose of personal freedom that the players sacrifice to make this game healthy. But their demands are outrageous when the cling to the little freedoms they have left? More revenue sharing among owners is out of the question because the owners feel they're entitled to the freedoms of individual profit maximization, as no busines owner wants to subsidize a struggling competitor.

Then let the union dissolve. Perhaps then the owners will respect what a cooperative business model looks like. These ranchers think they're special, as if they themselves aren't chomping on the grass like cattle to stay alive. We all ***** ourselves out someway or another.

This applies to both sides does it not for if there was no draft we would have the Leafs,Canadians,Rangers just staked and the rest of the league would be farm teams who is that good for the game? The owners give up just as much as the players do in order to make the game work as well as it does.

The reason I am pissed at the union is that they were offered I feel a very solid deal in October but not only didn't they take it seriously but offered up 2 ****** deals to counter it with knowing they would be shot down. I love hockey and I have always looked up to the players but in this lockout it looks like they either are being lead by ego's looking to get revenge on the owners or they simply don't understand business. The union has publicly misstated facts numerous times and has taken many shots at the owners and Bettman when you just don't see it happening the other way. I am pissed at the union because they are acting like children while complaining that they just want to play. If the owners were looking for more than the other major league's I may agree with the players but they are being offered the best CBA for players out of the 3 big leagues with a salary cap and they continue to act like it is beneath them.

This applies to both sides does it not for if there was no draft we would have the Leafs,Canadians,Rangers just staked and the rest of the league would be farm teams who is that good for the game? The owners give up just as much as the players do in order to make the game work as well as it does.

The reason I am pissed at the union is that they were offered I feel a very solid deal in October but not only didn't they take it seriously but offered up 2 ****** deals to counter it with knowing they would be shot down. I love hockey and I have always looked up to the players but in this lockout it looks like they either are being lead by ego's looking to get revenge on the owners or they simply don't understand business. The union has publicly misstated facts numerous times and has taken many shots at the owners and Bettman when you just don't see it happening the other way. I am pissed at the union because they are acting like children while complaining that they just want to play. If the owners were looking for more than the other major league's I may agree with the players but they are being offered the best CBA for players out of the 3 big leagues with a salary cap and they continue to act like it is beneath them.

No they don't. There's laughable revenue sharing. Plus they're's no T.V deal and too many franchises. Players salary is a band-aid issue in the NHL given that it's a gate driven business.

If if wasn't for the draft (a player concession) the league would be a disaster. So the players are holding this league together?

No they don't. There's laughable revenue sharing. Plus they're's no T.V deal and too many franchises. Players salary is a band-aid issue in the NHL given that it's a gate driven business.

If if wasn't for the draft (a player concession) the league would be a disaster. So the players are holding this league together?

Yes they do, the draft is decades old the players aren't giving it up, and again if there was no draft then there are half as many teams at most and the major of players are looking for jobs so the draft helps the owners as much as it helps the players both side gain something from it. I don't get the no tv deal they just signed a huge deal with NBC? Player salary is over half of the cost of running a team if they control that by not paying players 10+ million then it will go along way to fixing the finical problems in the league. The players aren't holding the league together but like an union and their employer they are working together to ensure that everyone in the company can make a profit including the owners who you seem to feel should be losing money because they are rich.

Yes they do, the draft is decades old the players aren't giving it up, and again if there was no draft then there are half as many teams at most and the major of players are looking for jobs so the draft helps the owners as much as it helps the players both side gain something from it.

I'm sure Yakupov would much prefer a 10 million dollar contract with a team he wants to play for right out of the gate. The draft is a restriction on the labour market, and the players are the labour. So how is it helpful for both sides?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGleninator

I don't get the no tv deal they just signed a huge deal with NBC?

The NBC deal is a joke. Between TSN, Sportsnet and CBC, I can probably watch 75% of games for all Canadian teams. NBC is suppose to cover the remaining 23 teams? Teams like the Hurricanes aren't being broadcasted like it should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGleninator

Player salary is over half of the cost of running a team if they control that by not paying players 10+ million then it will go along way to fixing the finical problems in the league.

So what? HRR is a net calculation. Moreover, Health care salaries can take up to 50% of costs [1]. This makes sense because good health care is essentially good/many doctors and nurses. What makes up good hockey?

The players aren't holding the league together but like an union and their employer they are working together to ensure that everyone in the company can make a profit including the owners who you seem to feel should be losing money because they are rich.

Working together? The league already said the players aren't partners, they're cattle. The players put in an offer an it's rejected in 10 minutes. Cooperation involves respect.

And I never said they should be losing money. When Toronto rakes in a billion dollars while Pheonix is in the hole for 25 million, they league has the business model of reducing salaries by 25 million for each team. Nevermind asking billion dollar teams to share that revenue, it's more "cooperative" to ask the players to solve the problem. It's a stupid model and insulting to the players and fans.

I'm sure Yakupov would much prefer a 10 million dollar contract with a team he wants to play for right out of the gate. The draft is a restriction on the labour market, and the players are the labour. So how is it helpful for both sides?

Yep he should would and every player is a yakupov? Wait they aren't and this lockout is suppose to be about the majority of the players not the top few huh weird logic you are choosing.

The NBC deal is a joke. Between TSN, Sportsnet and CBC, I can probably watch 75% of games for all Canadian teams. NBC is suppose to cover the remaining 23 teams? Teams like the Hurricanes aren't being broadcasted like it should.

A joke? It is the best deal in hockey history just because you want a better one doesn't mean it will happen.

So what? HRR is a net calculation. Moreover, Health care salaries can take up to 50% of costs [1]. This makes sense because good health care is essentially good/many doctors and nurses. What makes up good hockey?

Its funny because the owners are also paying for team medics so lets pay the players what they want and supply them with everything

Working together? The league already said the players aren't partners, they're cattle. The players put in an offer an it's rejected in 10 minutes. Cooperation involves respect.

They never said that, that was not an owner. If the players feel so strongly that they are underpaid they should start their own league good luck building arenas and paying ref's and getting the equipment. The owners have paid all the overhead and now that they want to see a profit and now the players don't think its fair, I didn't see them complaining when they were working to 2 jobs in the 1920's

And I never said they should be losing money. When Toronto rakes in a billion dollars while Pheonix is in the hole for 25 million, they league has the business model of reducing salaries by 25 million for each team. Nevermind asking billion dollar teams to share that revenue, it's more "cooperative" to ask the players to solve the problem. It's a stupid model and insulting to the players and fans.

You do realize they increases revenue sharing in the new proposed cba right? It isn't like the NFL's which I have already said I would like to move to but to say they aren't doing anything is bul****.

I don't get how it insults the fans any more the players lying to the media about the deals but I guess lying is ok but wanting to keep what you earn isn't but isn't that what the players are complaining about huh seems like a double standard to me.

Yep he should would and every player is a yakupov? Wait they aren't and this lockout is suppose to be about the majority of the players not the top few huh weird logic you are choosing.

It is about the majority of the players. Besides Crosby and Tews, what type of players were in the players-owners meeting for two days? 4th line guys like J. Meyers and Westgarth were negotiating their position. Who are the player reps?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGleninator

A joke? It is the best deal in hockey history just because you want a better one doesn't mean it will happen.

Everything I've read says otherwise. It's well known on the business boards that Bettman expanded into the south in hopes of receiving that ESPN national contract. It never happened, hence there is poor revenue for small market teams in the states.

But I'm sure you knew that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGleninator

Its funny because the owners are also paying for team medics so lets pay the players what they want and supply them with everything

They would anyways. It's called quality control.

Would you rather YOUR doctor tell YOUR employee if they can or cannot work because of an injury, or would you rather an employee go to their own doctor and get whatever type of "doctor's note" they want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGleninator

If the players feel so strongly that they are underpaid they should start their own league good luck building arenas and paying ref's and getting the equipment. The owners have paid all the overhead and now that they want to see a profit and now the players don't think its fair, I didn't see them complaining when they were working to 2 jobs in the 1920's

I'm not going to dignify this with a response. You're so desperate to justify the owner's position that you're willing to use this type of redneck arguement? You should be ashamed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGleninator

You do realize they increases revenue sharing in the new proposed cba right? It isn't like the NFL's which I have already said I would like to move to but to say they aren't doing anything is bul****.

I don't get how it insults the fans any more the players lying to the media about the deals but I guess lying is ok but wanting to keep what you earn isn't but isn't that what the players are complaining about huh seems like a double standard to me.

I never said lying is ok. Daryl Katz was lying to Edmonton. Bettman was lying to Winnipeg. I hold no double standards. I'm not going to get all worked up about PR press conferences. Opinions are relative, and hence calling them lies is a poor way of characterizing them.

It is about the majority of the players. Besides Crosby and Tews, what type of players were in the players-owners meeting for two days? 4th line guys like J. Meyers and Westgarth were negotiating their position. Who are the player reps?

Everything I've read says otherwise. It's well known on the business boards that Bettman expanded into the south in hopes of receiving that ESPN national contract. It never happened, hence there is poor revenue for small market teams in the states.

But I'm sure you knew that.

They would anyways. It's called quality control.

Would you rather YOUR doctor tell YOUR employee if they can or cannot work because of an injury, or would you rather an employee go to their own doctor and get whatever type of "doctor's note" they want.

I'm not going to dignify this with a response. You're so desperate to justify the owner's position that you're willing to use this type of redneck arguement? You should be ashamed.

I never said lying is ok. Daryl Katz was lying to Edmonton. Bettman was lying to Winnipeg. I hold no double standards. I'm not going to get all worked up about PR press conferences. Opinions are relative, and hence calling them lies is a poor way of characterizing them.

Plus I have no idea what you're even talking about. What lies?

Why I never once said they should be working 2 jobs but if they find it insulting making 500k+ maybe they should think about what real "love of the game is", they love the game no more than the owners and both love money more than hockey. Katz wasn't lying he is how did Bettman lie to Winnipeg?

The lies are saying the owners are trying to take back their money from there contracts that has never been on the table and more than 1 on more than 1 occasion brings it up like the owners are trying to take food out of their mouths or something.

So your saying not expanding into the south would have given a better contract? That doesn't even make sense since they barely show the south teams.

Why I never once said they should be working 2 jobs but if they find it insulting making 500k+ maybe they should think about what real "love of the game is", they love the game no more than the owners and both love money more than hockey. Katz wasn't lying he is how did Bettman lie to Winnipeg?

The lies are saying the owners are trying to take back their money from there contracts that has never been on the table and more than 1 on more than 1 occasion brings it up like the owners are trying to take food out of their mouths or something.

So your saying not expanding into the south would have given a better contract? That doesn't even make sense since they barely show the south teams.

For the longest time Bettman was denying any and all plans of relocating a team to Winnipeg.

About the whole lying about the money thing, I think you're reading too much into it. Because even though the make whole provision was increased, it didn't cover the 389 million required for the owners to honor the contracts they signed. The owners sign a bunch of contracts before the lockout, and now they don't want to pay for them? Sounds to me like they're trying to take back the money they promised.

As far as the television contract and southern expansion, I'd suggest reading into it if it doesn't make sense. Bettman was suppose to get a NFL, NBA, or MLB type of television deal by expanding into the south with the logic that it would make the NHL a nation-wide sport

For the longest time Bettman was denying any and all plans of relocating a team to Winnipeg.

So because he didn't want to discuss a possible sale of a team publicly he was lying? That is just business before anything is final you don't announce it, that simply isn't lying he just didn't want to be premature about it.

About the whole lying about the money thing, I think you're reading too much into it. Because even though the make whole provision was increased, it didn't cover the 389 million required for the owners to honor the contracts they signed. The owners sign a bunch of contracts before the lockout, and now they don't want to pay for them? Sounds to me like they're trying to take back the money they promised.

That simply isn't true the players that have contracts won't lose 1 penny they are guaranteed it is lying and they never bother correcting it.

As far as the television contract and southern expansion, I'd suggest reading into it if it doesn't make sense. Bettman was suppose to get a NFL, NBA, or MLB type of television deal by expanding into the south with the logic that it would make the NHL a nation-wide
sport

I have read into it and no network anywhere offered a national us contract until the NBC deal was offered. Espn offered to have the nhl compete with poker there wasn't anything national about the other offers, the NBC deal is the largest deal in the history and the best one they have ever had.

I have read into it and no network anywhere offered a national us contract until the NBC deal was offered. Espn offered to have the nhl compete with poker there wasn't anything national about the other offers, the NBC deal is the largest deal in the history and the best one they have ever had.

If you don't know what a lie is, I can't help you. I did say that this is all just PR rhetoric, so I understand when either party exaggerates.

Do you have a source that the contracts aren't worth 389 million? Because I've read otherwise.

And again, the NBC contract is a joke. Coverage is nowhere compared to the NFL, MLB, or NBA. Besides, its not a good idea for the league to lock-out after signing such deals.

If you don't know what a lie is, I can't help you. I did say that this is all just PR rhetoric, so I understand when either party exaggerates.

Do you have a source that the contracts aren't worth 389 million? Because I've read otherwise.

And again, the NBC contract is a joke. Coverage is nowhere compared to the NFL, MLB, or NBA. Besides, its not a good idea for the league to lock-out after signing such deals.

He never lied give it up.

Yes it is but show me when they were offered better you can't because it never happened.

This is from the offer

Quote:

The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it has worked under the expired CBA. (In other words, under the expired CBA, the compensation a Player received each year was either higher or lower than the face value of his contract depending upon Club-Player contracting levels and the level and growth rate of HRR.) Under the expired CBA, in two of the seven years Players were paid in excess of the face values of their SPCs and in five of those years they received less than their face values. That process would remain intact under the new CBA.

Yes it is but show me when they were offered better you can't because it never happened.

This is from the offer

But where did you get this from? Gary Bettman. Because I recall the NHL offering 200 million or so in the make whole proposal with the intention of addressing the PA's concerns of the owners not honoring their contracts. Fehr said it doesn't come close and counters with 389 but have it paid by the owners, and not by the players that the NHL tried to get away with originally.

The league then bumps it up to 300 million. So I'm curious, if the first offer did what the NHL said it did, why did they bump it up? Was the first make whole offer a lie in it's intention?

But where did you get this from? Gary Bettman. Because I recall the NHL offering 200 million or so in the make whole proposal with the intention of addressing the PA's concerns of the owners not honoring their contracts. Fehr said it doesn't come close and counters with 389 but have it paid by the owners, and not by the players that the NHL tried to get away with originally.

The league then bumps it up to 300 million. So I'm curious, if the first offer did what the NHL said it did, why did they bump it up? Was the first make whole offer a lie in it's intention?

It is from the 300 million offer, the players said it would take 389 million but the league says it will only take 250 to "make whole" and so they would put 50 million the player pension funding which is player funded but the players want it to be paid for by the nhl which is where the different numbers come from.

Anybody care to give me a quick rundown of what's been happening since their major breakdown? Been swamped at work and haven't cared to look into it since.

Secondary parties, such as Steve Fehr and Bill Daly, negotiated with mediators again for a few days.

Then the NHLPA considered to vote to have the union dissolved when the League filed legal action with hopes of preventing the union from dissolving or otherwise have contracts void if they do. The PA figures that if there's no union, the lock out would be a violation of labour laws.

At this point I'd be shocked if we saw a season. Barring a miracle, or intervention like a Crosby or Gretzky hockey type taking things into their own hands, I don't see season a being played this year.

I really don't care anymore either, I've been following and loving the NFL way more this year (Peterson, Megatron, and Watt have had incredible years) and I've been starting to rekindle my love for basketball again that I haven't had since Jordan left.

At this point I'd be shocked if we saw a season. Barring a miracle, or intervention like a Crosby or Gretzky hockey type taking things into their own hands, I don't see season a being played this year.

I really don't care anymore either, I've been following and loving the NFL way more this year (Peterson, Megatron, and Watt have had incredible years) and I've been starting to rekindle my love for basketball again that I haven't had since Jordan left.

I would love for hockey to come back especially after the nfl playoffs are over (or start as I doubt Dallas makes it), but I agree I doubt we see a season as both parties have taken steps this week to make negotiations even more hostile (hard to believe)

I would love for hockey to come back especially after the nfl playoffs are over (or start as I doubt Dallas makes it), but I agree I doubt we see a season as both parties have taken steps this week to make negotiations even more hostile (hard to believe)

I'd be happy don't get me wrong, but I've lost that feeling of how pumped I was for this season to start. And I actually think Dallas has a shot, Romo has actually been protecting the ball with consistency.

On another note (and slightly off topic) what do you guys think about the Jays getting Dickey? If Romero can bounce back their rotation is going to be sick! The Yanks will be good as always, and Orioles and Rays will be good, but the Jay's on paper to me have the best team.

I'd be happy don't get me wrong, but I've lost that feeling of how pumped I was for this season to start. And I actually think Dallas has a shot, Romo has actually been protecting the ball with consistency.

On another note (and slightly off topic) what do you guys think about the Jays getting Dickey? If Romero can bounce back their rotation is going to be sick! The Yanks will be good as always, and Orioles and Rays will be good, but the Jay's on paper to me have the best team.

Romo has been carrying Dallas the problem is the defense is real beat up and with Byrant having a broken finger he has a hard time making catches.

I don't think Dickey was the right move he only has a few years left in his arm its just a very small window but they will be strong next year.

There's no doubt this hockey season is over. Unfortunately I don't have it in me to get to know another sport. I know hockey and kind of b-ball, and the odd MMA fight.

Its one thing to like a sport, it's another to know a sport. I'm not going to learn 750+ more players in the NFL. I'm not going to learn all new stats, salaries, rankings and whatever else. Until everyone around me starts talking about a certain sport around the "water cooler", I can't dedidate that much time again.